I agree. The cycling scene in the UK is very dominated towards the track, because of the way that funding is set up: the British funding is awarded based on Olympic and Commonwealth golds achieved, and to put it simply there are more medals available, and fewer uncontrolable variables, on the track than on the road. So, our best youngsters are made to ride the track on the WCPP if they want any support. British Cycling is now recognised as a national example of best practice, and other sports are trying to catch up to try to retain their funding. But it means that our best riders aren't even transferring to the road until their mid 20s, like Wiggins, and have a lot of catching up to do. Contrast to Ireland, who send their youngsters to a camp in Belgium to learn to race.
In terms of the drugs question for trackies: we're constantly told here in the UK that of course our track team is clean, and that they are leading the way in demonstrating what can be done without drugs. Looking at it objectively though, it doesn't stack up: Britain has gone from nowhere 10 years ago, to one of the leading track nations in the world virtually overnight. Our model was always said to be based on that of the AIS, but mentions of that have gone a bit quiet recently. Much as it would be nice to think that 'our boys' were clean (and I've ridden with some of those guys since they were in the youth categories) I know what people looking in from other countries must think and it's hard to think of any rational explanation not to agree.
